Geocaches responsible for getting us BANNED

[+Renegade Knight]

So by some of the theories proffered above... If I place a cache in a park located in the town square, and some knucklehead zeros out in the middle of Main Street and is busy trying to lift a manhole cover when struck by a delivery truck... I'm responsible? ...Now if we could just come up with a way to ban stupidity !

 

To help finders get a clue that my puzzle cache wasn't at the listed coordinates I used the Idaho State Police parking lot in the fenced area behind their building as my fake coordinates. The area is fenced and posted. Any finder who didn't read the "cache is not at listed coordinates" part of the clue and missed that it's a puzzle should have caught a clue when they hit the posted fence.

 

Nope. I got word from a retired ISP officer and cacher that finders were looking in that posted and fenced parking lot for a cache that wasn't there. He strongly suggested that I move my fake coordinates. I then chose the posted and fenced sewage treatment plants sewage lagoons. No problems since.

 

Was I responsible for the cachers who didn't catch a clue? No. But once I had a clue that cachers were missing the hint and looking anyway should I have moved my fake coords? Absolutly. Now that I know about this angle all future fake coords will be in sewage lagoons, or in the middle of a vast parking lot where clueless finders can be clueless and not cause me problems. I would not put my fake coords in the middle of the interstate. Someone would probably look there and complain about bad coordinates.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I've got an idea! How about we just plainly tell people exactly where the cache is so that there is absolutely no danger of any problems whatsoever.

 

Even if a cache is planted near a rose garden, shouldn't people know better than trompling on rose bushes? Since when did I become responsible for the stupid behavior of other people? And in addition, you'd have me believe that in addition to being responsible for other people's bad behavior, I'm also responsible for other people's perceived behavior.

 

No thanks! (although, if a bunch of morons destroyed the rose bushes, I'd probably archive the cache, but that in no way would prevent me from bringing people to a garden to enjoy rose bushes)

[CoyoteRed]

I know! Let's take an argument to an extreme to make a point!

 

[+sbell111]

I know! Let's take an argument to an extreme to make a point!

 

Isn't that the very thing that people on the other side of the issue did with the 'peeled tree' position?

Edited March 14, 2008 by sbell111

[+Too Tall John]

Is the consensus there that "diabolical" hides don't belong in out of the way natural areas and should be relegated to Wal*Mart parking lots where an over enthusiastic finder can't do much damage?

I swear, it was in the Lamppost! I checked the trees to be sure, though...

Edited March 14, 2008 by Too Tall John

[+TrailGators]

I know! Let's take an argument to an extreme to make a point!

 

Isn't that the very thing that people on the other side of the issue did with the 'peeled tree' position?

That was only one "people" that said that and he said it back on the first page of this thread. I took what he said as an observation of one "actual" experience he had while caching. That example was the fault of the finders anyhow. Edited March 14, 2008 by TrailGators

[+team lagonda]

''that was only one people''....that was only one person-fixed..

[+TrailGators]

''that was only one people''....that was only one person-fixed..

Umm, I knew that. That's why I put "people" in quotes. Anyhow, if we get the discussion back to the middle, then most of us would agree that it depends on the situation but both hiders and finders have to consider the environment where the cache is located. Even when the hiders follow the guidelines there can be issues caused by where they hide a cache. Edited March 14, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Confucius' Cat]

I would not put my fake coords in the middle of the interstate. Someone would probably look there and complain about bad coordinates.

And that's the point... clearly predictable, even though only a problem for stupid seekers. Therefore placing a cache there (or posting those coordinates), whether real or bogus, would be irresponsible on the part of the hider.

 

Has anyone noticed that TV shows and movies usually have phone numbers in the "555" exchange (which is a bogus exchange except for a few special numbers)? Yep, because stupid people call phone numbers they see on TV and the owners of the numbers don't like getting the stupid calls.

 

Yes, if you carry this principle to the extreme, no caches would exist, nor could any coordinates ever be published for any purpose because some fool will plug them into his GPSr and go there and put themselves in danger or do some "damage."

 

Pretty much the same goes for anything taken to the extreme.

 

While a hider cannot control what a seeker does, the hider should not knowingly facilitate the seeker's stupidity.

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

I see so many points flying here and then conversations about Monty Python my head is spinning.

 

While I can understand the original posters thoughts on the matter and others, I do think it comes down to following the restrictions set in place by Groundspeak to ensure the hides are correct. It is up to the hider to ensure that the cache isn't all but impossible. It is up to the searcher to be responsible. If it starts getting questionable... stop. Do not take DNF as a failure. Walk away. Think about it. Give it a couple days.... Reviewers who are reviewing a cache should actually pay attention to where it is and if it is in an area that is known to have rare wildlife or vegetation, make sure this cache is clear and concise to avoid damage - if they even approve it at all.

 

Fact is property owners have a right to allow or restrict caches. If a park chooses to restrict caches and remove them, perhaps it is the hiders fault for not seeking permission in the first place. Sure, public places we see as "public places" and in most cases, permission is not necessary on the whole, but when you are talking about places with "rare and sensitive vegetation" (not standard grass and regular ole trees) perhaps it would be in the hiders best interest to ask first.

 

The example relating a hider to a person who forgot to lock their front door and got robbed is a bit off kilter. A person never asks to be robbed, but a person who hides a cache is doing it HOPING someone comes to find it. I have never left my door unlocked and prayed for someone to rob me. So - while a good attempt to liken caching to something real and negative.... sorry. Don't see it.

 

SO... what I'm saying is it really is all of geocaching's responsibility. Groundspeak, hiders, finders, reviewers.... When I hide a cache I have to make sure its good and not going to endanger anyone or anything. When I find one, it is my responsibility to not go through it like a bull in a china shop and just enjoy where I am.

 

Unfortunately, my biggest complaint about using parks is that.. if its not a park or a cemetary.... its generally not a cache location. BLAH

 

So.

 

Save Wildlife, yay.

Save plants, yay.

Save caching, yay.

 

We all agree. Carry on.

 

[Clan Riffster]

Last time: The closer a cache is to something nice that might be damaged by a vigorous, hands-on search, the easier it should be to find.

I think that's a reasonable rule of thumb. As with most rules of thumb, there will always be exceptions, and there will always be folks who disagree with it either in principle or in practice. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

but it's also the hider's fault in that this behavior is entirely predictable.

Most of what you say I agree with, but this is where I take umbrage. One of the most accurate ways to predict the future is to look at the past. I've got less than a thousand finds. Probably somewhere near 900. Out of those 900 finds, I'd say maybe 5 showed signs of careless cache seeking. The majority of these were close to, if not smack dab in the middle of, sensitive areas, yet less than 1 percent showed signs of the inaptly named "entirely predictable" destructive behavior.

 

In an earlier post, Confucious Cat, (I think?), mentioned negligence, and provided a definition. In my opinion, a cache hider can only be found negligent if a reasonable and prudent person would come to the conclusion that a hide, due to its nature, resulted in damage to an area. I don't know what the national or global odds are regarding caches placed versus caches whose surrounding areas have been damaged, but my personal observations are less than 1 percent. If damage occurs at 1 percent of the hides, would it be reasonable or prudent to make such a prediction?

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

I think with the issue of damage is how can you be sure it was the cachers who did it? If a cache is in a park... then assumptions are safe in saying that "more than just cachers go to that park" - If the area is rare or beautiful, would that not increase the chances of who visited the location is not a cacher?

 

A person hiding a cache cannot predict the behavior of anyone NOR can he or she predict the behavior of people who don't cache (who would be going there for the same reason he would if he were looking for it).

 

Some people are conscious of their surroundings and don't harm things, other people thrive in causing destruction. So, lets assume a hider can predict the behavior of any cacher visiting his or her cache... what of the people who are just there visiting the area?

 

I don't think the problem is the cache or cachers... its people in general.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I think with the issue of damage is how can you be sure it was the cachers who did it? If a cache is in a park... then assumptions are safe in saying that "more than just cachers go to that park" - If the area is rare or beautiful, would that not increase the chances of who visited the location is not a cacher?

 

A person hiding a cache cannot predict the behavior of anyone NOR can he or she predict the behavior of people who don't cache (who would be going there for the same reason he would if he were looking for it).

 

Some people are conscious of their surroundings and don't harm things, other people thrive in causing destruction. So, lets assume a hider can predict the behavior of any cacher visiting his or her cache... what of the people who are just there visiting the area?

 

I don't think the problem is the cache or cachers... its people in general.

 

I have a cache on my front porch.

 

Last night someone rolled my yard... roll after roll of toilet paper strung everywhere!

 

Do I assume that geocachers must have done it since there is a geocache there?

 

No, that's not a logical assumption any more than assuming that damage in a park happened because there's a cache there.

 

 

Oh, dang! Maybe I should ask where the mods are this week... are any traveling through Alabama?

Edited March 14, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+ReadyOrNot]

I would not put my fake coords in the middle of the interstate. Someone would probably look there and complain about bad coordinates.

And that's the point... clearly predictable, even though only a problem for stupid seekers. Therefore placing a cache there (or posting those coordinates), whether real or bogus, would be irresponsible on the part of the hider.

If the coords are in the middle of the interstate and the cache page says, "These are not the listed coordinates", then I would say the cache owner has no responsibility.

 

Has anyone noticed that TV shows and movies usually have phone numbers in the "555" exchange (which is a bogus exchange except for a few special numbers)? Yep, because stupid people call phone numbers they see on TV and the owners of the numbers don't like getting the stupid calls.

I bet the stupid people are the exception. But 1% of 10,000,000 people is a LOT of phone calls

 

While a hider cannot control what a seeker does, the hider should not knowingly facilitate the seeker's stupidity.

All caches would be in bubble wrap with nothing else around them if that priciple was followed. At some point, you have to assume that seekers are going to be responsible.

[+TrailGators]

I have a cache on my front porch. Last night someone rolled my yard... roll after roll of toilet paper strung everywhere! Do I assume that geocachers must have done it since there is a geocache there? No, that's not a logical assumption any more than assuming that damage in a park happened because there's a cache there.

Some rangers don't use logic. In ABDSP there were ~350 caches in almost 1000 square miles of park land (which is nothing). We know of 1 cache that got blamed for damage to a nearby senstive spot (a hole was dug near a pile of rocks) and allegedly there were a few others too close to other sensitive spots even though no damage had occurred in those areas. We have also heard of an issue where "cachers" were allegedly caught driving off the trail and were fined. I use the word "allegedly" because there is no hard proof that any of these incidents involved cachers and yet we've been banned from this park. So we know of two alleged hider issues and two alleged finder issues and now we have been banned without a defense. My point is that if the rangers are hyper-sensitive and do not use logic, then you can get banned from a park for a tiny percentage of incidents even if you didn't do them. So where caches are hidden really matters even if they have not caused a problem because it is about perception of the rangers managing the park. So if a tiny fraction of hiders and finders actually don't use their heads, you can be banned if you do that in the wrong park.

[+Renegade Knight]

...At some point, you have to assume that seekers are going to be responsible.[/color]

 

They are always responsible for their actions.

 

Mitigting for their anticipated actions is different from assuming responsibility for them.

 

Changing the example a bit.

I can make it less likely that I become a victum of crime. Deadbolts, Don't leave my car unlocked etc. At no point would I ever let a criminal off the hook for his crime. However that doesnt' mean that I shouldn't take the time to make the crime less likely.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Save Wildlife, yay.

Save plants, yay.

Save caching, yay.

 

We all agree. Carry on.

 

 

I like your way of thinking. We need some yay icons.

[+ReadyOrNot]

...At some point, you have to assume that seekers are going to be responsible.[/color]

 

They are always responsible for their actions.

 

Mitigting for their anticipated actions is different from assuming responsibility for them.

 

Changing the example a bit.

I can make it less likely that I become a victum of crime. Deadbolts, Don't leave my car unlocked etc. At no point would I ever let a criminal off the hook for his crime. However that doesnt' mean that I shouldn't take the time to make the crime less likely.

 

Ok.. I'm with you for the most part.. But I'm struggling with two points:

 

1) What actions should be anticipated

2) How should a person alter their placement behavior in anticipation of those actions

 

Examples:

- Tearing bark off tree - don't place near trees?

- Tearing up bushes - don't place in bushes?

- overturning rocks - don't place near rocks?

- Getting hit by cars - don't place near where cars would go?

- Getting electrocuted - don't place near electricity?

 

Does my question make sense? If I try to anticipate all the possible idiotic things another cacher can do, am I not extremely limiting how I can place my cache?

Edited March 14, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+Renegade Knight]

...1) What actions should be anticipated

2) How should a person alter their placement behavior in anticipation of those actions...

 

1) Whatever you can anticipate.

2) Whatever you can figure out to do.

 

This is going to vary by the person. Some will be better at it than others. The goal is to try.

 

This isn't a law cast in stone. It's a guideline and a good thing to do. It should never become a hard rule for all the reasons you are concerned about it.

[+ReadyOrNot]

The rock wall example is often given. Can anyone give some real-world examples of cache placements that caused damage that resulted in geocaching being banned. The situation down in California doesn't count, because it wasn't the cache or damage resulting from the cache that caused the bannination to occur.

 

Any real examples?

[+TrailGators]

The situation down in California doesn't count, because it wasn't the cache or damage resulting from the cache that caused the bannination to occur.

This is not true. Someone dug a hole and disturbed an Indian cairn. A cache was found 300 feet due south and the rangers assumed the damage was caused by cachers looking for that cache because they allege that these cachers had their datum set to NAD27 instead of WGS84. This datum error puts GZ right where the damage occurred. There is no way to prove or disprove this. However, now that we know how these guys use shaky evidence, we could have changed (too late now) the distance to a sensitive areas in that park from 200 feet to 528 feet to stop cachers from being accused of this ridiculous allegation in the future.

[+ReadyOrNot]

The situation down in California doesn't count, because it wasn't the cache or damage resulting from the cache that caused the bannination to occur.

This is not true. Someone dug a hole and disturbed an Indian cairn. A cache was found 300 feet due south and the rangers assumed the damage was caused by cachers looking for that cache because they allege that these cachers had their datum set to NAD27 instead of WGS84. This datum error puts GZ right where the damage occurred. There is no way to prove or disprove this. However, now that we know how these guys use shaky evidence, we could have changed (too late now) the distance to a sensitive areas in that park from 200 feet to 528 feet to stop cachers from being accused of this ridiculous allegation in the future.

 

You said yourself that the damage was not caused by a geocacher. You had no way of knowing that the rangers were going to be such..... ummmmmm... well, nevermind.

 

What should you have anticipated?

What actions should have have taken based on that anticipation?

[+TrailGators]

The situation down in California doesn't count, because it wasn't the cache or damage resulting from the cache that caused the bannination to occur.

This is not true. Someone dug a hole and disturbed an Indian cairn. A cache was found 300 feet due south and the rangers assumed the damage was caused by cachers looking for that cache because they allege that these cachers had their datum set to NAD27 instead of WGS84. This datum error puts GZ right where the damage occurred. There is no way to prove or disprove this. However, now that we know how these guys use shaky evidence, we could have changed (too late now) the distance to a sensitive areas in that park from 200 feet to 528 feet to stop cachers from being accused of this ridiculous allegation in the future.

 

You said yourself that the damage was not caused by a geocacher. You had no way of knowing that the rangers were going to be such..... ummmmmm... well, nevermind.

 

What should you have anticipated?

What actions should have have taken based on that anticipation?

I don't think it was but it's the ranger's opinion that matters. Anyhow, my point was to apply "lessons learned" (if possible) from situations where we have been banned. Based on what we know now, we could make sure that caches are not hidden closer than 528 feet from a sensitive area. If we look at other examples we may be able to learn other ways to mitigate future issues with other parks and apply those to our geocaching proposals to parks. We are meeting tomorrow to review a proposal so we can get permission to geocache in several parks in the San Diego area that the US Fish and Wildlife Service has recently acquired. Edited March 14, 2008 by TrailGators

[+briansnat]

Ok.. I'm with you for the most part.. But I'm struggling with two points:

 

1) What actions should be anticipated

2) How should a person alter their placement behavior in anticipation of those actions

 

You can't anticipate everything, but you can make some common sense observations and alter your

placement in response to them.

 

A while ago I hid a cache a bit off the trail at the top of a steep embankment. After placing it, I slid down the embankment on my backside to get back to the trail. It struck me that if I slid down the embankment, so would most subsequent finders and after 10-15 finders it would probably be an eroded mess, so I went back and moved the cache to another spot.

 

Put your cache in a flower bed and you can assume that even the most careful searchers might accidentally step on a flower. Multiply that over 20-30 finds and you can predict with some accuracy that the flower bed

will be destroyed.

 

Hide it in a rock wall and you can be fairly certain that searchers will move rocks to look for the cache and some might not carefully replace them.

 

Hide a micro next to a shagbark hickory, and you can assume that most searchers will pull at the bark looking for the cache. You can also assume that some may not do so gently.

 

The rock wall example is often given. Can anyone give some real-world examples of cache placements that caused damage that resulted in geocaching being banned

 

I have no examples but the potential does exist. All you need is for the wrong person to find a problem cache and report it to the wrong person.

[Trinity's Crew]

The rock wall example is often given. Can anyone give some real-world examples of cache placements that caused damage that resulted in geocaching being banned. The situation down in California doesn't count, because it wasn't the cache or damage resulting from the cache that caused the bannination to occur.

 

Any real examples?

There have been at least a couple of threads discussing actual damage to stone walls that was most likely attributable to geocachers searching in the wrong places. I don't know that any of the examples led to geocaching being banned as a result of it, but it didn't make the damage any less real.

 

Edit: Fixed quote. I hope.

Edited March 14, 2008 by Trinity's Crew

[+ReadyOrNot]

The rock wall example is often given. Can anyone give some real-world examples of cache placements that caused damage that resulted in geocaching being banned. The situation down in California doesn't count, because it wasn't the cache or damage resulting from the cache that caused the bannination to occur.

 

Any real examples?

There have been at least a couple of threads discussing actual damage to stone walls that was most likely attributable to geocachers searching in the wrong places. I don't know that any of the examples led to geocaching being banned as a result of it, but it didn't make the damage any less real.

 

Edit: Fixed quote. I hope.

 

So is it fair to say then that geocaches are NOT responsible for getting us banned? (Hiders or Seekers)?

[Ferreter5]

Even if a cache is planted near a rose garden, shouldn't people know better than trompling on rose bushes?

Yes.

[CoyoteRed]

The rock wall example is often given. Can anyone give some real-world examples of cache placements that caused damage that resulted in geocaching being banned. The situation down in California doesn't count, because it wasn't the cache or damage resulting from the cache that caused the bannination to occur.

 

Any real examples?

You want examples where there was real damage and caused banning? Or do you want perceived damage and caused banning? Is there a difference in the eyes of those doing the banning?

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

Its the beloved happy medium. Placing a cache with big yellow arrows pointing to it would be... well, ridiculous. If you thought mugglers were a problem before...

 

BUT to hide a cache means, you have to hide it and the person looking for it is going to have to look for it.

 

If a person is 100% eco-friendly, they would not choose caching as a hobby simply because people are going to step on plants and break twigs off trees.

 

I don't see how hard it is to say that if you are a hider, then hide responsibly. Don't put it in a rare vegetation. If you are a finder, know that the hider was responsible and wouldn't put you in a place to destroy something. If you can't find it, don't rip bark off a tree and don't disassemble a stone wall.

 

Dunno.... seems logical enough.

[+ReadyOrNot]

The rock wall example is often given. Can anyone give some real-world examples of cache placements that caused damage that resulted in geocaching being banned. The situation down in California doesn't count, because it wasn't the cache or damage resulting from the cache that caused the bannination to occur.

 

Any real examples?

You want examples where there was real damage and caused banning? Or do you want perceived damage and caused banning? Is there a difference in the eyes of those doing the banning?

 

I think there is a HUGE difference between perceived cache damage and real cache damage. There may not be a difference in the eyes of those doing the banning, but the difference for the cache hider is the difference between "Truth" and "Fiction".

[CoyoteRed]

I think there is a HUGE difference between perceived cache damage and real cache damage. There may not be a difference in the eyes of those doing the banning, but the difference for the cache hider is the difference between "Truth" and "Fiction".

Yet, caching is still banned. Banned is banned. I don't see the difference.

 

I mean if you're going to toss absolutes around then we need concrete definitions that apply to the real world. Even with "real" damage, does that include real damage that is temporary or permanent? If temporary, how long and to what effort is the repair? If permanent, then what reversible versus irreversible damage? Damage can be permanent yet reversible, right?

 

Come on, I know we can do it. Let's refine this down to finest of details and leave no stone unturned, no pun intended.

 

Or not.

 

Banned is banned. Simply as that. There will be occasions when the ban is not fair or based on real-world facts. Sometimes it will be because of past experiences. The idea is not to totally eliminate the chances of negative consequences of any cache, but to reduce them as much as our enjoyment of the hobby will allow.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Banned is banned. Simply as that. There will be occasions when the ban is not fair or based on real-world facts. Sometimes it will be because of past experiences. The idea is not to totally eliminate the chances of negative consequences of any cache, but to reduce them as much as our enjoyment of the hobby will allow.

 

That's got to be one of the more silly things I've ever heard. As if there is no difference between truth and fiction? That's like telling someone on death row who is innocent that there is no difference between them and a person on death row that is guilty. They may both be on death row, but the difference is HUGE..

 

Come on now...

 

Edit: (Added rolled eyes)

Edited March 14, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+TrailGators]

I think there is a HUGE difference between perceived cache damage and real cache damage. There may not be a difference in the eyes of those doing the banning, but the difference for the cache hider is the difference between "Truth" and "Fiction".

Yet, caching is still banned. Banned is banned. I don't see the difference.

 

I mean if you're going to toss absolutes around then we need concrete definitions that apply to the real world. Even with "real" damage, does that include real damage that is temporary or permanent? If temporary, how long and to what effort is the repair? If permanent, then what reversible versus irreversible damage? Damage can be permanent yet reversible, right?

 

Come on, I know we can do it. Let's refine this down to finest of details and leave no stone unturned, no pun intended.

 

Or not.

 

Banned is banned. Simply as that. There will be occasions when the ban is not fair or based on real-world facts. Sometimes it will be because of past experiences. The idea is not to totally eliminate the chances of negative consequences of any cache, but to reduce them as much as our enjoyment of the hobby will allow.

Exactly! You can get banned for fact and for fiction. We got banned and we still don't know if it was because fact or fiction. The point is to make fiction less likely to be perceived as fact. For example, keep caches far away from sensitive areas... Edited March 14, 2008 by TrailGators

[+ReadyOrNot]

Exactly! You can get banned for fact and for fiction. The point is to make fiction less likely to be perceived as fact. For example, keep caches far away from sensitive areas...

 

If I were arrested by the police because I was close to where the crime occured, or looked kinda like the guy that committed the crime, I wouldn't just take it sitting down. That's like telling the victim of an assault that they shouldn't have been wearing a short skirt. If the cache didn't cause the damage, then the cache didn't cause the damage... PERIOD

 

If you truely believe that geocaching was banned and it wasnt the fault of geocaching, then why would you roll over? You ought to be fighting them tooth and nail for the sake of the name of geocaching. By rolling over, you might as well be admitting that the damage was caused by geocaching.

 

In the long term, attitudes of defeat like this are whats going to hurt geocaching. You took 2 steps back and they took 1 step forward... You are losing the battle and you seem ok with that.

Edited March 14, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+TrailGators]

Exactly! You can get banned for fact and for fiction. The point is to make fiction less likely to be perceived as fact. For example, keep caches far away from sensitive areas...

If I were arrested by the police because I was close to where the crime occured, or looked kinda like the guy that committed the crime, I wouldn't just take it sitting down.

 

If you truely believe that geocaching was banned and it wasnt the fault of geocaching, then why would you roll over? You ought to be fighting them tooth and nail for the sake of the name of geocaching. By rolling over, you might as well be admitting that the damage was caused by geocaching.

 

In the long term, attitudes of defeat like this are whats going to hurt geocaching. You took 2 steps back and they took 1 step forward... You are losing the battle and you seem ok with that.

Very bad analogy because a superintendent can ban geocaching from a park without a trial. Anyhow, we are not rolling over.You have no idea what you are talking about. Talk about fiction.... Edited March 14, 2008 by TrailGators

[+ReadyOrNot]

Exactly! You can get banned for fact and for fiction. The point is to make fiction less likely to be perceived as fact. For example, keep caches far away from sensitive areas...

If I were arrested by the police because I was close to where the crime occured, or looked kinda like the guy that committed the crime, I wouldn't just take it sitting down.

 

If you truely believe that geocaching was banned and it wasnt the fault of geocaching, then why would you roll over? You ought to be fighting them tooth and nail for the sake of the name of geocaching. By rolling over, you might as well be admitting that the damage was caused by geocaching.

 

In the long term, attitudes of defeat like this are whats going to hurt geocaching. You took 2 steps back and they took 1 step forward... You are losing the battle and you seem ok with that.

Very bad analogy because a superintendent can ban geocaching from a park without a trial. You have no idea what you are talking about. We are not rolling over.

 

So the fact that he did it without a trial makes it ok? It's not the fault of the cache that was 300 feet away. If the cache was 528 feet away, and the damage occured, do you think it would have made a difference? How about 1/2 mile? 3/4 mile? 1 mile? No matter how you slice it, you guys are backing down from the fight. (Wish I was down there)

Edited March 14, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+TrailGators]

So the fact that he did it without a trial makes it ok? It's not the fault of the cache that was 300 feet away. If the cache was 528 feet away, and the damage occured, do you think it would have made a difference? How about 1/2 mile? 3/4 mile? 1 mile? No matter how you slice it, you guys are backing down from the fight.

I never said it was OK. I just said that he did it and geocaching must cooperate with park rules per the guidelines.

 

My previous example already explained why 300 feet wasn't enough. I would go with 528 feet as a standard distance from sensitive areas to make it easy for admins to plug those areas in just like they were finals for puzzle caches. That leaves us plenty of room for caches and it alloes a far enough distance away from sensitive spots that no reasonable person could connect that cache to damage of a sensitive area.

Edited March 14, 2008 by TrailGators

[+ReadyOrNot]

So the fact that he did it without a trial makes it ok? It's not the fault of the cache that was 300 feet away. If the cache was 528 feet away, and the damage occured, do you think it would have made a difference? How about 1/2 mile? 3/4 mile? 1 mile? No matter how you slice it, you guys are backing down from the fight.

I never said it was OK. I just said that he did it and geocaching must cooperate with park rules per the guidelines.

 

My previous example already explained why 300 feet wasn't enough. I would go with 528 feet as a standard distance from sensitive areas to make it easy for admins to plug those areas in just like they were finals for puzzle caches. That leaves us plenty of room for caches and it alloes a far enough distance away from sensitive spots that no reasonable person could connect that cache to damage of a sensitive area.

 

Had he just said, "Geocaches must be at least 528 feet away from sensitive area", that would have been ok, regardless of whether the cache caused the damage or not. I might be mistaken, but didn't he ban ALL geocaches from anywhere in the park? That's just not right and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with that kind of behavior.

 

that being said.. I understand that Groundspeak must enforce whatever rules are currently in effect, regardless of whether the guy is a bonehead... Understood.. But it's NOT RIGHT

 

there are some created ways to deal with the situation though

Edited March 14, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[CoyoteRed]

Banned is banned. Simply as that. There will be occasions when the ban is not fair or based on real-world facts. Sometimes it will be because of past experiences. The idea is not to totally eliminate the chances of negative consequences of any cache, but to reduce them as much as our enjoyment of the hobby will allow.

 

That's got to be one of the more silly things I've ever heard. As if there is no difference between truth and fiction? That's like telling someone on death row who is innocent that there is no difference between them and a person on death row that is guilty. They may both be on death row, but the difference is HUGE..

 

Come on now...

"Come on now" is right. Is either of them going to be any less dead? Silliness, indeed, comparing the death penalty to banning hobby pieces.

 

But, I'm bite...

 

Innocent or guilty is a matter of an appellate court. If one can not be convinced of innocence then the outcome is the same. The only difference if whether one person has a leg to stand on to get the verdict reversed.

 

Once the train starts down the wrong track with any authority it's hard to stop. Doesn't matter if the perceptions were completely wrong and from left field. It's hard to change minds once they are made up. Of course, you have a better chance if you can show the perceptions were false, but that is a harder row to hoe than not going down that path to begin with.

[+TrailGators]

So the fact that he did it without a trial makes it ok? It's not the fault of the cache that was 300 feet away. If the cache was 528 feet away, and the damage occured, do you think it would have made a difference? How about 1/2 mile? 3/4 mile? 1 mile? No matter how you slice it, you guys are backing down from the fight.

I never said it was OK. I just said that he did it and geocaching must cooperate with park rules per the guidelines.

 

My previous example already explained why 300 feet wasn't enough. I would go with 528 feet as a standard distance from sensitive areas to make it easy for admins to plug those areas in just like they were finals for puzzle caches. That leaves us plenty of room for caches and it alloes a far enough distance away from sensitive spots that no reasonable person could connect that cache to damage of a sensitive area.

 

Had he just said, "Geocaches must be at least 528 feet away from sensitive area", that would have been ok, regardless of whether the cache caused the damage or not. I might be mistaken, but didn't he ban ALL geocaches from anywhere in the park? That's just not right and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with that kind of behavior.

 

that being said.. I understand that Groundspeak must enforce whatever rules are currently in effect, regardless of whether the guy is a bonehead... Understood.. But it's NOT RIGHT

Lots of things in life aren't right. He is a bonehead. The point is that we can all learn things from some of these bannings so others can avoid the same (avoidable) pitfalls.

[+ReadyOrNot]

"Come on now" is right. Is either of them going to be any less dead?

 

Ummmm.. You don't think there's a difference between a dead innocent person and a dead guilty person? If you don't see a difference, then I have nothing more to say.

Edited March 14, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+tozainamboku]

The rock wall example is often given. Can anyone give some real-world examples of cache placements that caused damage that resulted in geocaching being banned. The situation down in California doesn't count, because it wasn't the cache or damage resulting from the cache that caused the bannination to occur.

 

Any real examples?

You want examples where there was real damage and caused banning? Or do you want perceived damage and caused banning? Is there a difference in the eyes of those doing the banning?

Being from South Carolina, I suspect that CR knows what he is talking about. Still, I'd like to think that it would be easier to stand up to the Catherine Ceips's or the Mark C. Jorgensen's of the world if we could point out that there is no proof of geocachers causing damage and perhaps show that it is unlikely that geocachers caused any damage that did happen to occur near a cache. It would also be good to be able to point to the existing guidelines about placing caches in sensitive places and be able to say that if a cacher finds a cache in a sensitive area he can ask the owner to move the cache and can post a Needs Archive log if needed. In fact, the instructions for cache maintenance in the "Guide to Hiding a Geocache" say

Once you place the cache, it is your responsibility to maintain the cache and the area around it. You'll need to return as often as you can to ensure that your cache is not impacting the area, and ensure that the cache is in good repair.

 

Once people have visited the cache, inquire about the cache and their opinion of the location. Does the area look disturbed? Are visitors disrupting the landscape in any way? If you have concerns about the location, feel free to move or remove it from the area.

Cachers, as a group, are just as concerned as any land manager or state senator to make sure that geocaching doesn't have a negative impact on the environment or historic/archaeological assets. If we see a cache having a negative impact it is our duty to correct this. If we see potential for negative impact we are free to express our concerns to the cache owner who we hope will be responsible enough to take action to lessen the possibility for negative impact.

[+TrailGators]

The rock wall example is often given. Can anyone give some real-world examples of cache placements that caused damage that resulted in geocaching being banned. The situation down in California doesn't count, because it wasn't the cache or damage resulting from the cache that caused the bannination to occur.

 

Any real examples?

You want examples where there was real damage and caused banning? Or do you want perceived damage and caused banning? Is there a difference in the eyes of those doing the banning?

Being from South Carolina, I suspect that CR knows what he is talking about. Still, I'd like to think that it would be easier to stand up to the Catherine Ceips's or the Mark C. Jorgensen's of the world if we could point out that there is no proof of geocachers causing damage and perhaps show that it is unlikely that geocachers caused any damage that did happen to occur near a cache. It would also be good to be able to point to the existing guidelines about placing caches in sensitive places and be able to say that if a cacher finds a cache in a sensitive area he can ask the owner to move the cache and can post a Needs Archive log if needed. In fact, the instructions for cache maintenance in the "Guide to Hiding a Geocache" say

Once you place the cache, it is your responsibility to maintain the cache and the area around it. You'll need to return as often as you can to ensure that your cache is not impacting the area, and ensure that the cache is in good repair.

 

Once people have visited the cache, inquire about the cache and their opinion of the location. Does the area look disturbed? Are visitors disrupting the landscape in any way? If you have concerns about the location, feel free to move or remove it from the area.

Cachers, as a group, are just as concerned as any land manager or state senator to make sure that geocaching doesn't have a negative impact on the environment or historic/archaeological assets. If we see a cache having a negative impact it is our duty to correct this. If we see potential for negative impact we are free to express our concerns to the cache owner who we hope will be responsible enough to take action to lessen the possibility for negative impact.

I agree. Hindsight is 20-20 and it also sucks looking back at something you no longer have. So either adapt or it could happen to you too.

[+tozainamboku]

"Come on now" is right. Is either of them going to be any less dead?

 

Ummmm.. You don't think there's a difference between a dead innocent person and a dead guilty person? If you don't see a difference, then I have nothing more to say.

Why did you edit your post just as I was about to reply. I actually found a picture of a guilty innocent person

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 14, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+ReadyOrNot]

"Come on now" is right. Is either of them going to be any less dead?

 

Ummmm.. You don't think there's a difference between a dead innocent person and a dead guilty person? If you don't see a difference, then I have nothing more to say.

Why did you edit your post just as I was about to reply. I actually found a picture of a guilty innocent person

 

Hehehehe I was quick about changing that, but apparently, you were quicker

[+Renegade Knight]

...Once the train starts down the wrong track with any authority it's hard to stop. Doesn't matter if the perceptions were completely wrong and from left field. It's hard to change minds once they are made up. Of course, you have a better chance if you can show the perceptions were false, but that is a harder row to hoe than not going down that path to begin with.

 

Cachers, as a group, are just as concerned as any land manager or state senator to make sure that geocaching doesn't have a negative impact on the environment or historic/archaeological assets. If we see a cache having a negative impact it is our duty to correct this. If we see potential for negative impact we are free to express our concerns to the cache owner who we hope will be responsible enough to take action to lessen the possibility for negative impact.

 

Both well said.

Edited March 14, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+ReadyOrNot]

...Once the train starts down the wrong track with any authority it's hard to stop. Doesn't matter if the perceptions were completely wrong and from left field. It's hard to change minds once they are made up. Of course, you have a better chance if you can show the perceptions were false, but that is a harder row to hoe than not going down that path to begin with.

 

Cachers, as a group, are just as concerned as any land manager or state senator to make sure that geocaching doesn't have a negative impact on the environment or historic/archaeological assets. If we see a cache having a negative impact it is our duty to correct this. If we see potential for negative impact we are free to express our concerns to the cache owner who we hope will be responsible enough to take action to lessen the possibility for negative impact.

 

Both well said.

 

Yeah, very well said. So when you get arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, you can rest assured that I'm sure their perception of the situation justified your being arrested... And don't worry about getting out of jail, because once you start down the judicial path, its hard to change minds. In fact, it would have been better if you didn't give off that incorrect perception to begin with. I guess next time it happens, you'll be more careful about causing someone else to perceive you incorrectly.

 

I feel much better.. Thanks! Can you perceive what I'm thinking right now?

Edited March 14, 2008 by ReadyOrNot

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The rock wall example is often given. Can anyone give some real-world examples of cache placements that caused damage that resulted in geocaching being banned. The situation down in California doesn't count, because it wasn't the cache or damage resulting from the cache that caused the bannination to occur.

 

Any real examples?

I can give you several, in fact... I would have to comb my profile for cache names, but yes I have seen a number of walls dismantled and caching banned on the property because of it.

 

One I was searching for in Anniston Alabama when the landowner approached. He had no idea there was a cache on his property. I explained the game and invited him to hunt it with me, which he did. We found it under rocks that had been removed from the top of the old stone wall. He said he didn't mind if the cache stayed nearby, but not where it was that required rocks to be removed from the wall.

 

I relocated it to a hole in the base of a tree perhaps five feet away, emailed the cache owner explaining what I did and that the landowner had no problem with the new location; the cache owner modified the listing to say something like "Not in the stone wall, please don't take it apart".

 

Within a week I got a call from the irate landowner that he had disposed of the cache because cachers were still dismantling the wall looking for it and we were no longer welcome on his land.

 

Another was similar - a 9/11 memorial with a stone wall behind benches... the cache was in the wall such that cachers had to lift a loose capstone to find it. I visited it maybe seven times tour-guiding other cachers and watched the wall deteriorate over time as cachers took it apart. The city finally took the cache.

 

A third was a Civil War-era rock wall beside a church, same deal, loose rocks were removed to find a Tupperware container. The wall was soon in shambles (took maybe two weeks) and the church had it removed and caching banned on their property.

 

I did this myself, when I was a new cacher with just an eTrex Yellow, with something like 10 caches found I went to a cache that appeared to be in a rock wall surrounding a Confederate cemetery. I spent literally hours looking in every nook and cranny, wiggling every rock to see if it was loose, looking under or behind those that were... no joy. There was a sign on a post within feet of the wall stating that this was the center of Alabama; I examined that sign closely several times. I was really frustrated that I just could not find this cache! Went back to attacking the wall. Nada.

 

Got home, looked up the listing, it was a virtual using info on that dang sign... which of course I had not recorded since at that time I had never heard of a virtual cache!!

 

The landowner chased several cachers away, he was treated as a joke, whether he actually owned the land was questioned, eventually he chased off enough cachers that the thing was archived.

 

So yes, it is a legitimate concern, it does happen. It's perfectly legal to hide a cache in a stone wall (given permission) but rarely a good idea.

Edited March 14, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

[Trinity's Crew]

The rock wall example is often given. Can anyone give some real-world examples of cache placements that caused damage that resulted in geocaching being banned. The situation down in California doesn't count, because it wasn't the cache or damage resulting from the cache that caused the bannination to occur.

 

Any real examples?

There have been at least a couple of threads discussing actual damage to stone walls that was most likely attributable to geocachers searching in the wrong places. I don't know that any of the examples led to geocaching being banned as a result of it, but it didn't make the damage any less real.

 

Edit: Fixed quote. I hope.

 

So is it fair to say then that geocaches are NOT responsible for getting us banned? (Hiders or Seekers)?

Well the flip side of that is that I don't know that the examples DIDN'T lead to a ban either.

[+TrailGators]

...Once the train starts down the wrong track with any authority it's hard to stop. Doesn't matter if the perceptions were completely wrong and from left field. It's hard to change minds once they are made up. Of course, you have a better chance if you can show the perceptions were false, but that is a harder row to hoe than not going down that path to begin with.

 

Cachers, as a group, are just as concerned as any land manager or state senator to make sure that geocaching doesn't have a negative impact on the environment or historic/archaeological assets. If we see a cache having a negative impact it is our duty to correct this. If we see potential for negative impact we are free to express our concerns to the cache owner who we hope will be responsible enough to take action to lessen the possibility for negative impact.

 

Both well said.

 

Yeah, very well said. So when you get arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, you can rest assured that I'm sure their perception of the situation justified your being arrested... And don't worry about getting out of jail, because once you start down the judicial path, its hard to change minds. In fact, it would have been better if you didn't give off that incorrect perception to begin with. I guess next time it happens, you'll be more careful about causing someone else to perceive you incorrectly.

 

I feel much better.. Thanks! Can you perceive what I'm thinking right now?

I don't know why you keep thinking that there is some kind of easily workable judicial system with parks. You don't seem to understand how superintendents/rangers manage parks. If they perceive a threat then it's their job to take steps to mitigate that threat. They view geocaching as a privilege that they allow. They can rescind that privilege at any time. They don't have to consult with Joe Public. Some superintendents and rangers only perceive the negative side of geocaching and other activities since they are focused on protecting the park's resources. So if some of us mindlessly place caches "near" sensitive areas then we are threatening the game for everyone. So what is "near?" "Near" is their perception of what could be a threat. So instead of throwing your hands up and saying that "it's not fair" you could talk to these people in your area to get a clear image of what they would construe as a threat and then make sure the community understands this. This is what we are doing with the parks in our area and I think it's a wise and proactive move.